A sanctuary of knowledge and provoking information providing documented proof of a system dominated by a few elite bloated egos and that a ancient solution of a Silver bullet nature exists.

Thursday, February 3, 2011

To Whom Your Children Belong..are they really yours???

To Whom Your Children BelongJoyce RosenwaldJoyce Rosenwald suffered a stroke a year or so ago and backed out of her publiclife. Till then she performed extraordinary legal research, and I so admire herfor her contributions to our knowledge and insight. She first told me about interventionand how to get federal courts to intervene in state matters and forcethe A.G. to declare whether a state law comports with the US constitution. Joycewrote a lot about the issue of children and to whom they belong. You will "ndher research and conclusions shocking.From !e Idaho ObserverPeople from each colony fought in the Great War to enable the colony tobecome a Sovereign Nation State. !ese States then created a new state, designedto exclusively serve the several Sovereign Nation States. Under this concept thenation of States united was born. Every sovereign Nation State joining the Unionhad a Constitution. The newly created state received one as well. It was written bythe people of the several states and was titled “!e constitution for !e unitedStates of America.”This new state was “delegated” 17 authorities [powers] by theseveral states. !e people never intended that it should over step it's delegatedauthorities.Some scholars believe the freedom ended before the ink was dry on thecontract [?] written between the people and their new government, The Constitution.”there is some question as to exactly where and when the new nation faltered.Some say it was in 1789, with the Judiciary Act. Others say it was after theCivil War. Still others claim it was in 1913 or 1921 or perhaps in 1933. Historytells us the Supreme Court of the United States government claims it was whenthe Union itself was formed.In the case New Hampshire v. Louisiana and others; New York v. Louisianaand others, (1) it states that: “all the rights of the States as independentnations were surrendered to the United States.” !e States are not nations, eitheras between themselves or towards foreign nations. !ey are sovereign within theirspheres, but their sovereignty stops short of nationality. their political status athome and abroad is that of States in the united States. !ey can neither make warnor peace without the consent of the national government. Neither can they, exceptwith like consent, “enter into any agreement or compact with another State.”Art. 1, Sec. 10, Cl. 3.The relation of one of the united States to its citizens is not that of an independentsovereign State to its citizens. A sovereign State seeking redress of anothersovereign State on behalf of its citizens can resort to war on refusal, which aState cannot do. !e state, having been a sovereign, with powers to make war,issueletters of marque and reprisal, and otherwise to act in a belligerent way, resignedthese powers into the control of the United States, to be held in trust.Designed to be a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”Representatives of this government were to be elected by the people, notborn to power. And so, in 1776 the great experiment in freedom, known as “!eUnited states of America”, began.In United States v. Chamberlin, the Supreme Court of the United StatesDecided, to wit:It is a familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unlesshe be named therein by special and particular words. !e most generalwords that can be devised (for example, any person or persons, bodies politic orcorporate) a#ect not him in the least, if they may tend to restrain or diminishany of his rights and interests. He may even take the bene$t of any particularact, though not named.The rule thus settled respecting the British Crown is equally applicable to thisgovernment, and it has bee applied frequently in the di#rent states, and practicallyin the federal courts. It may be considered as settled that so much of theroyal prerogatives, as belonged to the King in his capacity of parens patriae oruniversal trustee, enters as much into our political state as it does into the principlesof the British Constitution.Under most religious law, the children belong to the parents. It is a moralobligation on the part of the parents to care for and educate their children intheir existing social values and morals.In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act was passed creatingbirth “registration” or what we now know as the “birth certi$cate.” It was knownas the “Maternity Act” and was sold to the american people as a law that wouldreduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants,and for other purposes. One of those other purposes provided for the establishmentof a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state agencies in the overseeingof its operations and expenditures. !is can now be seen as the First attemptof “government by appointment,” or cooperation of state governments to aid thefederal government in usurping the legislative process of the several states as existstoday through the federal grant in aid to the states programs.Prior to 1921 the records of births and names of children were enteredinto family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. !ese recordswere readily accepted by both the family and the law as “o%cial” records. Since1921 the american people have been registering the births and names of theirchildren with the government of the state in which they are born, even thoughthere is no federal law requiring it. !e state claims an interest in every childwithin it's jurisdiction, telling the parents that registering their child's birth2 Awakeningsthrough the birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the unitedStates, thereby making him/her a united states citizen.In 1923, a suit was brought against federal o%cials charged with the administrationof the act, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, Secretaryof the Treasury, et.al. !e plainti#, Mrs Frothingham, averred that the act wasunconstitutional, and that it’s purpose was to induce the States to yield sovereignrights reserved by them and not granted the federal government, under the Constitution,and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the severalStates. The complaint stated the naked contention that Congress has usurpedreserved powers of the States by the mere enactment of the statute, though nothinghas been, or is to be, done under it without their consent. Mr. Alexander Lincoln,Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.To wit:The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Governmentpowers which are almost wholly unde$ned, in matters relating to maternityand infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for thepurposes of the act.Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill inCongress of regulations which may be imposed under the act.The forced registration of pregnancy, governmental prenatal examinationof expectant mothers, restrictions on the right of a woman to secure the servicesof a midwife or physician of her own selection, are measures to which the peopleof those States which accept its provisions may be subjected. !ere is nothingwhich prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal appropriations. Insuranceof mothers may be made compulsory. !e teaching of birth control and physicalinspection of persons about to marry may required.The act gives all necessary powers to cooperate with the state agencies inthe administration of the act. Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcementof the plans submitted to it, and for that purpose by its agents to gointo the several States and to do those acts for which the plans submitted mayprovide. As to what those plans shall provide the $nal arbiters are the Bureau andthe Board. The fact that it was considered necessary in explicit terms to preservefrom invasion by federeral o%cials the right of the parents to the custody andcare of their child and the sanctity of his home shows how far reaching are thepowers which were intended to be granted by the act.It was further stated in the complaint that “The act is invalid because itassumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power.” Inmore recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits to thepower of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one of the powersexpressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the reserved powers of theStates, and that laws showing on their face detailed regulation of a matter whollywithin the police power of the States will be held to be unconstitutional although! ! The Case Against Income Tax Cases! 3they purport to be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power. It went onto state:The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercisedonly with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannotassume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States bythe Constitution. (7) !e act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegaloption either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendmentor to give up its share of appropriations under the act."A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exacta waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void.!e act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by cooperation betweenthe Federal Government and certain of the States, not provided by theConstitution.Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the Statesthe power to make laws for the United States."In 1933, bankruptcy was covertly declared by President Roosevelt. !egovernors of the then 48 States pledged the “full faith and credit” of their states,including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reservesystem. The “Full faith and credit” clause of Const. U.S. article 4. sec. 1, requiresthat foreign judgement be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage ofthe state of it's origin. That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to whichthey are entitled in the home state. And that a judgement or record shall have thesame faith, credit, conclusive e#ect, and obligatory force in other states as it hasby law or usage in the state from whence taken. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.cites omitted.Today the federal government "mandates, orders and compels " the statesto enforce federal jurisdiction upon it's citizens/subjects. !is author believes thefederal government draws it's de facto jurisdiction for these actions from the“Doctrine of Parens Patriae.” Parens patriae means literally, “parent of the country.”It refers traditionally to the role of state as sovereign and guardian of personsunder legal disability. Parens patriae originates from the English common lawwhere the King had a royal prerogative to act as guardian to persons with legaldisabilities such as infants.With the birth registration established, the federal government, under thedoctrine of parens patriae, had the mechanism to take over all the assets of theAmerican people and put them into debt in perpetuity. Under this doctrine, ifone is born with a disability, the state (the sovereign) has the responsibility totake care of you. This author believes that the disability you are born with is, infact, the birth itself. I believe that when you are born, you are born free, a “citizenof the soil,” an American National. Parents, without full disclosure under law,make application for a “birth certifcate,” thereby making the child a citizen of the4 Awakeningscorporate government known as the United States. !e government then turnsthe new citizen into a corporation under the laws of the state.The birth information is collected by the state and is then turned over tothe U.S. Department of Commerce. !e corporation is then placed into a "trust",known as a “Cestui Que trust.” A cestui que trust is defined as: He who has a rightto a beneficial interest in and out of an estate the legal title to which is vested inanother; the benefciary of another. Cestui que use is: he for whose use and bene-fit lands or tenements are held by another.The cestui que use has the right to receive the profits and benefits of theestate, but the legal title and possession, as well the duty of defending the same,reside in the other.The government becomes the trustee, while the child becomes the benefi-ciary of his own trust. Legal title to everything the child will ever own is nowvested in the federal government. !e government then places the trust into thehands of the parents, who are made “guardians.” !e child may reside in thehands of the guardians (parents) until such time as the state claims that the parentsare no longer capable to serve. !e state then goes into the home and removesthe “trust” from the guardians. At majority, the parents lose their guardianship.The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset,which if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor formany years. The child itself is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate. “Title” to your child is now owned by the state. !e state now directs thetrust corpus and provides “bene$ts” for the beneficiary—the corpus and bene$-ciary being one and the same: the citizen, first as child and then as adult.!e debt transfers from the death of one corpus to the birth of anotherthrough the process know as “Novation.” Novation is de$ned as “the substitutionofa new contract between same or different parties; the substitution of a newdebt or obligation for an existing one; the substitution of one debtor for anotheror of one creditor for another, whereby the old debt is extinguished.” This authorbelieves the debt of an individual is extinguished at his death, and the same debtis then transferred to a new individual when he/she is born through the registeringof the birth, thereby creating a new corpus that will again reside in the handsof the trust.Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of the bankruptUnited States which acts as the “Debtor in Possession.” We are now designatedby this government as "HUMAN RESOURCES," with new such resourcesbeing added (born) continually. !e bankruptcy is a receivership, rather than adischarged bankruptcy. The bankruptcy debts are serviced, not paid or discharged.The Human Resources service the debt, which continues to grow withtime.! ! The Case Against Income Tax Cases! 5The federal government, under Title 15, U.S.C., re-delegates federal parenspatriae authority to the state attorney generals. The attorneys general can nowenforce all legislation involving your personal life, the lives of your children andyour material assets.In today's society the government, through the doctrine of parens patriae,has already instituted it's control of our children through the legislative process.Medical treatments are enforced through the court with threatsof loss of yourchild if the treatment is challenged. Vaccinations are now mandatory. Refusalmay result in the loss of your child under the guise of “child neglect” (failure topreserve the trust corpus).If you spank your child or cause him/her any embarrassment or indignities,you are also at risk of having your child taken from you under the guise ofchild abuse (damaging the trust corpus).Some states have legislation either pending or passed to give social workersarrest authority. School nurses may now report any suspected child abuse tothe proper authorities. Warrantless searches of your home are tolerated by thecourts, all in the name of safety for the child.The Sun Sentinel, a Florida news paper, reported on March 15, that limitson the ability of divorced parents to relocate when minor children are involvedwere clari$ed by the Florida Supreme Court. !e high court three years ago approveda policy favoring relocation requests of custodial parents as long as suchmoves are made in good faith for the well being of parents and children. Also, thejustices ruled at that time, moves cannot be made “from a vindictive desire to interferewith the visitation rights of the other parent.” The right of locomotion isheld as an element of personal liberty. Restraint upon the right of locomotionwas a well-known feature of slavery abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment. AFirst requisite of the right to appropriate the use of another man was to becomethe master of his natural power of motion. The control by government courts(supra) of an individuals' freedom of locomotion could be construed as a sign ofownership of the individual, or slavery .It's been reported that in California, early in the year, an assembly woman,in regard to education policy, made the statement “ the children belong to theSTATE.” Parens patriae legislation covers every area of your personal life. Federalparens patriae legislation can be found in Title 15 of the United States Code:Sec. 15h. Applicability of parens patriae actionsSections 15c, 15d, 15e, 15f, and 15g of this title shall apply in any State, unlesssuch State provides by law for its non applicability in such State.The primary responsibility of a State is to protect it's citizens from thetyranny of the federal government. !e Federal Constitution claims a citizen canseek redress and protection under the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitutionfor any state legislation that brings them an injury by depriving them of acivil right. A state may sue the Federal government for protection for it's citizens6 Awakeningsif federal legislation violates the Constitutions of the several states and bringsharm to it's citizens. The 14th Amendment did not authorize congress to create acode of municipal law for the regulation of private rights. Positive rights andprivileges are undoubtedly secured by the 14th Amendment, but they are securedby way of prohibition against state laws and state proceedings affecting thoserights and privileges. the amendment was intended to provide against state laws,or state action of some kind, adverse to the rights of the citizen secured by theamendment. Such legislation cannot properly cover the whole domain of rightsappertaining to life, liberty and property, defining them and providing for theirvindication. That would be to establish a code of municipal law regulative of allprivate rights between man and man in society. It would be to make congress takethe place of the state legislatures and to supersede them.However, the Supreme Court in the above case (Commonwealth of Massachusettsv. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et.al.) ruled that:A State may not, as parens patriae, institute judicial proceedings to protect hercitizens (who are no less citizens of the United States), from the operation of afederal statute upon the ground that, as applied to them, it is unconstitutional.The parens patriae power has been recognized and exercised from timeimmemorial as being under the rule of a tyrant.Note: The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but parts of it havebeen found in other legislative acts. What this act attempted to do was set upgovernment by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re-delegated authority outsideof Constitutional authority, with the ability to tax, which is in itself unconstitutionaland represents taxation without representation. This type of governmentis in place today and is known as “Regionalism.” The federal governmentcouldn't fool the people in 1921 into surrendering their sovereignty, but in1933….Fascism